Abdul Samad Shaikh & Ors. Vs.state & Ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1220208
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnDec-20-2018
AppellantAbdul Samad Shaikh & Ors.
RespondentState & Ors.
Excerpt:
* in the high court of delhi at new delhi crl.m.c. 5482/2018 date of order: december 20, 2018 abdul samad shaikh & ors. through: mr. m.hasibudding, advocate .....petitioners versus state & ors. through: dr. m.p. singh, additional public .....respondents prosecutor with si c.p. singh... respondents no.2 & 3 in person coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur order (oral) quashing of fir no.198/2013, under sections 323/324/3+ 1. ipc, registered at police station jamia nagar, delhi is sought on the ground that misunderstanding which led to registration of the fir, now stands cleared between the parties.2. mr. m.p.singh, learned additional public prosecutor for respondent-state accepts notice and submits that respondents no.2 & 3, present in the court have been identified to be the complainant/injured party of fir in question by si c.p. singh on the basis of identity proof produced by them.3.... respondents no.2 & 3, present in the court, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and the crl.m.c. 5482/2018 page 1 of 3 misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. they affirm the contents of their affidavits filed in support of this petition and submit that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the fir in question be brought to an end.4. in „gian singh vs. state of punjab‟ (2012) 10 scc303supreme court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-"“61. in other words, the high court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the high court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.” 5. the aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the supreme court in later decision in narinder singh v. state of punjab (2014) 6 scc466 6. in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the misunderstanding which led to registration of fir in question now stands cleared between the parties, i find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the fir in question would be an exercise in futility.7. accordingly, this petition is allowed and fir no.198/2013, under crl.m.c. 5482/2018 page 2 of 3 sections 323/324/3ipc, registered at police station jamia nagar, delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.8. this petition is accordingly disposed of. (sunil gaur) judge december20 2018 v crl.m.c. 5482/2018 page 3 of 3
Judgment:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 5482/2018 Date of Order: December 20, 2018 ABDUL SAMAD SHAIKH & ORS. Through: Mr. M.Hasibudding, Advocate .....Petitioners versus STATE & ORS. Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public .....Respondents Prosecutor with SI C.P. Singh... RESPONDENTS

No.2 & 3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.198/2013, under Sections 323/324/3
+ 1. IPC, registered at police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.

2. Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court have been identified to be the complainant/injured party of FIR in question by SI C.P. Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by them.

3.... RESPONDENTS

No.2 & 3, present in the Court, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and the CRL.M.C. 5482/2018 Page 1 of 3 misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. They affirm the contents of their affidavits filed in support of this petition and submit that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

4. In „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC303Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

"“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.” 5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Supreme Court in later decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the misunderstanding which led to registration of FIR in question now stands cleared between the parties, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.198/2013, under CRL.M.C. 5482/2018 Page 2 of 3 Sections 323/324/3
IPC, registered at police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

8. This petition is accordingly disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER20 2018 v CRL.M.C. 5482/2018 Page 3 of 3